Med anledning av mötesprotokollets per 20130626 omfattning
https://www.dfri.se/dfri/motesprotokoll/5-20130626/ önskar jag
särskilt lyfta fram punkt 10 genom att förmedla följande dialog
mellan Philip Luppens (programmerare AT4AM Core Toolkit) och Nicolas
Pettiaux (drivkraft RMLL):https://at4am.eu/pipermail/at4am/2013-June/date.htmlYay! \o/ Vänligen. //Erik -------- Original Message --------
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Nicolas Pettiaux wrote:
2013/6/27 Philip Luppens: Any feedback is welcome. Due to the nature of
the project, the assumed adopters are not exactly known
for being a) very vocal nor b) very quick in their
adoption. We're low on resources, but we aim high - even
if just to develop a vision that can be shared for the
future.
Â
It's perfectly possible to run your own
instance of AT4AM, backed by for example a PostgreSQL
database (which is what I'm running locally). The
instances on at4am.org, however, are
backed by an in-memory database, so whenever we do a
(nightly) deployment, the backend is wiped clean.
Now, I have been thinking (a lot) about
federation & importing of trusted content, but until
we can convince the EP to share its published proposals in
a more open format (preferably in Akoma Ntoso (AN)), this
will be limited to those source text that are converted
(semi)-manually. Afaik, the AN transformation in the EP is
not yet entirely into place, and the existing XML schema
in use is too limited and would prove quite challenging to
transform automatically (of course, once again Italy shows
us how it's done by providing pretty much all their
documents in AN).
Â
Well, at this moment we seem to have some
interest coming from Italy. I'm not familiar at all with
the procedures nor the way of amending or drafting in any
of the aforementioned countries, but I do believe the core
is flexible enough to handle those cases as well. The only
problem is the availability of source texts ...
I'm not entirely sure what would be of
interest to those attending the workshop; we do aim to
provide in time (given enough resources), a full turn-key
parliamentary solution (drafting, marking, amending,
voting, consolidating, ... ), but this will remain a
distant dream until we get more backing.
There's also the difference in target
audience: we aim to provide governments and large
organisations with these tools, but they might just as
well be used to improve legislation by allowing citizens
to participate actively, and even for lobbyists to make
their lives easier (although no-one wants to admit that
publicly, of course).
Â
Anything related to AT4AM is considered a step
forward, so yes, if possible, try to raise the topic.
Â
It will become more and more important as more
people want to participate in the making of laws, as they
demand more transparency and insight into the legislative
processes, and as they demand a more streamlined and
cost-effective government. Our tool is but once tiny
building block in getting governments to adopt a new
strategy and to migrate away from closed source &
proprietary formats (I do start to sound like a political
activist now, don't I? *sigh*).
Â
I'm assuming he will. And 'paperless'. Or
'papersmart', as our friends from the UN so eloquently put
it.
Cheers,
Phil
Â
"We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand." - Randy Pausch |